RUNNER AR1

ACTION RESEARCH AND SUPERVISING STUDENT-TEACHERS

By T.F. Hopper

University of Victoria

Published in RUNNER, Vol 32 (2), pp 21-22.

photocopying without the permission of the copyright holder

PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTION RESEARCH PROCESS

How does a student-teacher learn how to teach physical education effectively? It has been noted that unlike expert teachers, novices cannot easily attend to multiple ideas and events simultaneously (Rovegno, 1992; Sabers, Cushing, & Berliner, 1991). So how does an expert teacher attend to multiple ideas and events simultaneously allowing them to teach effectively? Compare the extreme difference between an eager novice student-teacher and a respected seasoned teacher when he or she teaches games. The novice student-teacher enters an unfamiliar, often threatening environment in which every action and decision is vital. Most seasoned teachers enter a familiar, often comfortable environment in which they can freely respond to the children. The seasoned teacher, through the many lessons that he or she has taught and reflectively evaluated, has come to know the context and the children he or she teaches. His or her pedagogical response is to bring out from the child, as in guide and enable the child to learn rather than to control and manipulate the child to do something in a certain way. So how does a student-teacher come to the same understanding and comfort level as an experienced teacher?

A student-teacher, Bob, after teaching his first games lesson remarked to me what it was like. He described that it felt as if the walls of the gym and the faces of the children seemed to close in on him. He felt blinkered. Initially all he could do was tell the grade 7 children what to do. “Get up!! Run around the gym!” was his first instruction. This brief and seemingly simple instruction caused him concern because the children rose to their feet and then stood, waiting to know which way to run. It would seem a trivial problem, but at the time Bob wondered what would be the best thing to do? Should the children run clockwise, anti-clockwise, anyway they liked? Bob described that he felt he was searching through a filing cabinet looking for the most educationally correct decision. Then he realized that knowing what was best for the children only comes when the children show what they can do, to which you as a teacher then respond.

Bob ended up getting the children to run in all different directions, sometimes all clockwise, sometimes any way they liked. After this he got the children to play a tag game. Bob said he monitored the children’s actions praising those that changed direction with a sharp turn, those that stopped well balanced, and as he did this Bob learned each child's name. Bob also helped those children who struggled to control their movement effectively. He told me that he would demonstrate to the child privately then send them back into the game. This first part of Bob’s lesson plan, a one minute jog for a warm-up, became a fifteen minute session focusing on quality running movement. What amazed Bob was how much the children simply enjoyed the freedom of movement. As he taught and acquired each child’s name he felt the importance of the lesson plan diminishing. He had responded in a form of movement dialogue with the children.

Is this how we learn to teach physical education? Plan to do something but essentially teach by monitoring the children’s activity then respond to them. The re-planning after each lesson is an evaluation of the lesson we have monitored and reflected upon. The reflection then gives meaning to our observations based on the context and our educational intents as the teacher. The problem is, how much can we monitor our own lessons when we teach physical education? If Bob had taught the lesson as he had planned, would he have become so acquainted with the children he was teaching? Though Bob felt he had realized a successful lesson because he had responded to the children, do all physical education teachers respond to their pupils, or do they strictly teach their lesson plan? If successful teaching is enabling pupils to do what they could not do before being taught, then responding to pupils unanticipated behaviour and following a detailed plan seem unrealistic. My conversation with Bob and agreement of a good teaching episode confirmed to him that he had realized a successful lesson; but how much more helpful would this assessment have been if I had actually watched Bob’s lesson and discussed his evaluation and reflection on how his lesson was successful? In what way could another person support Bob’s development as a teacher? It is the intent of this paper to suggest that the key to effective physical education in different contexts is the opportunity for teachers to access informative observations on their lessons, observations from their own points of view and observations from a colleague’s point of view. The action research process offers such a structure.

Figure 1 shows a model of the action research process. Action research is an ongoing process in which practitioners develop their practice collaboratively, through conversation and observation, with other practitioners based on a thematic concern i.e.

----------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 in about here

----------------------------------

effective teaching of games to children. The phases of action research include the development of a plan designed to realize teacher intents and to respond to concerns from previous lessons. As the teacher acts the plan it is observed by a colleague. The lesson is then reflected upon by the teacher and the observer based on the circumstances of the lesson. This information is used to re-plan the next lesson. This re-planning phase may involve a revised plan based on previous intents or concerns, or a new plan based on new concerns. The process, though logically simple, creates many difficulties. For example, who decides who monitors a teacher’s lesson? What does the observer see and not see? How should the observer’s observations be recorded? In the process of evaluating the lesson, which perspective dominates, that of the teacher or that of the observer? What embedded assumptions of effectiveness are in the observer’s or teacher’s perspectives on a situation? These questions revolve around the clarification of what constitutes knowledge of effective teaching. Since being recognized by the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940's, action research has claimed to improve practice through the use of collaborative endeavours. However, the improvement of both practice and the understanding of practice by practitioners is difficult to show and is arguably only an improvement based on the judgements of a person with authority, a person seen as having the knowledge of effective teaching. With student-teachers the supervising co-operating teacher defines the knowledge of effective teaching.

Some background to action research

There has been much controversy surrounding the constitution of action research. The essence of action research is the voluntary involvement and improvement in practice by a participant. As Tinning (1992, p.206) has explained, mandated curriculum innovation projects which foreground prediction and control rather than improvement of personal practice, can be pursued by numerous forms of positivistic research which need not be confused with action research. In action research participant improvement of personal practice is essential and is known as praxis. Praxis refers to reflection in practice where an individual construes a more enabling sense of the reality of his or her own existence and the existence of others. Praxis enables individuals to reflect on their practice by use of a variety of perspectives. Through practitioners’ dialogue, perspectives are shared that continuously develop mutual understandings that serve to liberate practitioners from the constraints that limit their practice. Practitioners’ dialogue is a conversation where the parties involved have a genuine interest in understanding what the other knows about a particular situation and what the other’s perspective is on a situation. Only through this understanding of perspective, even if you disagree, can you understand the meaning a situation has for the other person. The conversation is at the heart of an action research process as a vehicle to exchange ideas. This form of conversation as Gadamar (1975), a famous German philosopher said, is “to conduct a conversation...[which allows] oneself to be conducted by the object to which the partners in conversation are directed. It requires that one does not try to out-argue the other person, but that one really considers the weight of the other's opinion” (p. 330). In this way a conversation is a sharing of the perspective of each participant.

Conclusion

In an attempt at clarification Kemmis and McTaggart (1982) state that for research to be considered as action research the following criteria must be met:

1. the improvement of practice

2. the improvement...of the understanding of the practice by its practitioners, and

3. the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. (p. 84)

For these criteria to be met the aim is for the participants in an action research process to create a community of discussants that share a common purpose (usually based on a common concern). Each member of the community needs to have unique perspectives on the common purpose (i.e. teaching games effectively) that is drawn from experience. By sharing this perspective they can develop the conversation that informs the action research process.

The next paper in this series will describe an action research project involving ten student-teachers supervised by three qualified teachers teaching games in eight elementary and junior-high schools. The intent of the action research group was to facilitate for novice student-teachers, the learning of how to effectively teach games. A purpose of the action research meetings was to develop the relationship between the supervisors and the student-teachers so that the student-teachers took personal responsibility, within a supportive and reflective community, for the effective teaching of games.

References

Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research reader. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Rovegno, I. (1992). Learning a new curricular approach: Mechanisms of knowledge acquisition in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 253-264.

Sabers, D., Cushing, K., & Berliner, D. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.

Tinning, R. (1992). Action research as epistemology and practice: Towards transformative educational practice in physical education. In A. Sparkes (Eds.), Research in physical education and sport: Exploring alternative visions. (pp. 188-209). London: The Falmer Press.